X-Post: CPS Help Please

[shawthorne44]

 

Well, they were willing to help you even though you weren't a member.  I think that buys them some slack.  
 

[Ananda]

1 minute ago, shawthorne44 said:

 

Well, they were willing to help you even though you weren't a member.  I think that buys them some slack.  
 

I agree.  Although that isn't exactly what happened.  They allowed me to become a member in an hour for a $40 emergency fee in addition to the normal fee.  Only after I had joined did they give me the legal advice.  But I was impressed with the legal advice.  I am also grateful they allowed me to join to get advice on a situation in progress.  I assumed it worked like insurance where you have to join before you have a problem. 

[Bluegoat]

5 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

That’s because people are conditioned to respond to authority, and there are constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure, as well as self incrimination, precisely to protect innocent people from legal entanglements, not because anyone utilizing those rights is guilty and cagey.

Just because she sees criminals refusing her doesn’t mean that refusal is causatively linked with wrongdoing, and the CPS worker linking those in her mind is her own fallacy.

I fully believe most people don’t think strategically when working with the government, and tend to spill information that gets them into all manner of trouble from twisted words to process crimes.  Less is more here!

 

Another possibility is that people see that people see that their community workers are doing an important job, and want to make it possible for them to do it well, rather than behaving as if their community ties are based on barest legal requirements.

I don't expect community workers who are meant to be protecting children to ignore the things that experience tell them are pointing toward problems.  This woman already had two - one, a report which, while it seemed silly at first glance, someone thought was worth reporting  Secondly, when she looked at the school documents, it appeared that they might not exist.  So - a second flag.  So then she should ignore, on principle, when their response is similar to what she sees in cases of serious abuse?  Sure correlation isn't the causation, but it is actually quite valid scientifically to use visible correlations to measure things you can't see - like people who are trying to hide abusive situation.

The outcomes in this situation were very good - the OP has a better sense of the CPS people and has more trust in them.  The CPS lady knows more about homeschool families and this will help her in her work.  She also feels really confident that she is not leaving a problem behind that she should have caught, which is important.  

[EmseB]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Another possibility is that people see that people see that their community workers are doing an important job, and want to make it possible for them to do it well, rather than behaving as if their community ties are based on barest legal requirements.

I don't expect community workers who are meant to be protecting children to ignore the things that experience tell them are pointing toward problems.  This woman already had two - one, a report which, while it seemed silly at first glance, someone thought was worth reporting  Secondly, when she looked at the school documents, it appeared that they might not exist.  So - a second flag.  So then she should ignore, on principle, when their response is similar to what she sees in cases of serious abuse?  Sure correlation isn't the causation, but it is actually quite valid scientifically to use visible correlations to measure things you can't see - like people who are trying to hide abusive situation.

The outcomes in this situation were very good - the OP has a better sense of the CPS people and has more trust in them.  The CPS lady knows more about homeschool families and this will help her in her work.  She also feels really confident that she is not leaving a problem behind that she should have caught, which is important.  

But when should a random report of someone (you aren't allowed to know who!) thinking a kid is too old to be in pull ups mean that law enforcement should be able to come into your house? What should be too minor to investigate? Why assume the parent is wrong and has the responsibility to clear things up if the state can't find the paperwork? Why not assume the bureaucracy is wrong?

"Community workers" sounds awesome and quaint, except for the fact that these workers in particular have the power to forcibly remove kids from parents. It is super great this all went well for the OP and everyone learned something about each other. But the system is not set up with a kumbaya balance of power, at least not in the case of CPS. And the point most people were getting at was not that it was likely to go bad (or that the worker would toss her house as someone else strawmanned), but if it did it would be better to be prepared.

[moonflower]

CPS relies on the power imbalance to come into people's homes without just cause and without a warrant.  If this worker, who I am sure was well-intentioned, really wanted to know more about homeschooling for her own edification or to do her job better, she should have gone to a homeschool convention, or posted on a forum like this one, or done what anyone else without the whip-hand power of the CPS does when they want to know something.  Instead she used the power to force a conversation in which she still had the power the whole time.  My MIL used to love to do this when she hired people to take care of her aging mother - she'd discuss all manner of things with them and she really enjoyed the interview process because people were so deferential and polite.  It was a much easier interaction for her than just talking to someone in a scenario where she wasn't the potential employer; she had the power of position.  

 

[LMD]

3 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

So then she should ignore, on principle, when their response is similar to what she sees in cases of serious abuse?

 

 I do get what you're saying Bluegoat, but to this above part of your quote - yes. If following the legal process doesn't provide enough evidence to encroach upon the boundary of the private home, then what else can they legally do? 

[kiwik]

9 hours ago, EmseB said:

But when should a random report of someone (you aren't allowed to know who!) thinking a kid is too old to be in pull ups mean that law enforcement should be able to come into your house? What should be too minor to investigate? Why assume the parent is wrong and has the responsibility to clear things up if the state can't find the paperwork? Why not assume the bureaucracy is wrong?

"Community workers" sounds awesome and quaint, except for the fact that these workers in particular have the power to forcibly remove kids from parents. It is super great this all went well for the OP and everyone learned something about each other. But the system is not set up with a kumbaya balance of power, at least not in the case of CPS. And the point most people were getting at was not that it was likely to go bad (or that the worker would toss her house as someone else strawmanned), but if it did it would be better to be prepared.

Because the point is to protect the rights of the children not the rights of the parents.  

 

It isn't a great system but surely it is better to investigate where there is no cause than not investigate where there is cause.  They do seem to get it wrong a lot (here too) but it is not like we here about the straightforward cases.

Edited February 28, 2019 by kiwik

[Ausmumof3]

8 minutes ago, kiwik said:

Because the point is to protect the rights of the children not the rights of the parents.  

 

It isn't a great system but surely it is better to investigate where there is no cause than not investigate where there is cause.  They do seem to get it wrong a lot (here too) but it is not like we here about the straightforward cases.

I guess this depends on whether you view an investigation as no harm or not.  I think for me if I went through this it would probably change the way I parent and make me more guarded.  And high levels of parental stress aren’t good for kids at all.  Feeling like you have to maintain a perfectly clean home can definitely change the way you parent.

putting a diaper on a 9yo with the vomiting and paperwork not lining up seems like a pretty small thing to end up with cps in your house over.  I really would have thought verifying the paperwork would have solved the problem.  I mean the pull-up thing isn’t even an issue unless it’s an ongoing thing that the child’s being forced to wear against their will or an untreated medical thing.  

[Carrie12345]

Just throwing it out there that there will never be a perfect solution so long as there are parents who are abusing and/or neglecting their kids AND stupid neighbors/acquaintances/etc.  There just won’t.

I’ve been falsely accused. I’ve seen a relative beat the system for years and watched the kids suffer for it. My mom works in foster care, my sister was a therapist contracted by child services, and close friends were caseworkers. The whole thing is ugly and messy from every direction.

I’m all for exercising rights, but there are good reasons for each of us to run our own risk assessments and follow our guts in an imperfect system. Part of me does regret being as compliant as I was in my case years ago, but the other part is glad to have gotten it over with quickly so my family could move on and my caseworker could go focus on real problems. 

Another 2 cents: there’s a reason for caseworker turnover. All of this garbage eats them alive. I hated mine, and he didn’t know how to handle things well, but that’s because he was trained and experienced more to handle horrors than dumb crap. For all he knew, he could have been walking into yet another meth lab or makeshift armory.  Now that he’s out of my life, I wish him well and hope he’s made a difference in someone’s world. Even though I won’t let him in ever again!

[Mimm]

Incredibly strange complaint, but I'm glad it was resolved so well.

[....]

17 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Letting her sit on your couch is not a huge erosion of your rights. You chose to let her talk to you comfortably. 

 

I agree.  I would've done the same thing, OP.  I would've invited her inside the house.  *shrug*  

[Mimm]

17 hours ago, Ananda said:

HSLDA sent our acceptance email for membership.  

Dear Mrs. & Mr. Husband's first and last name . . . 

Seriously HSLDA right off the bat.  My husband & I don't even have the same last name. 

Typical. Once I ordered a phonics book from Abeka. I sent it to my name and paid with a credit card with my name on it. But in filling out the information on the site, they asked for my husband's name. And guess who the box was addressed to?

[Tanaqui]

5 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I guess this depends on whether you view an investigation as no harm or not.  I think for me if I went through this it would probably change the way I parent and make me more guarded.  And high levels of parental stress aren’t good for kids at all.  Feeling like you have to maintain a perfectly clean home can definitely change the way you parent.

putting a diaper on a 9yo with the vomiting and paperwork not lining up seems like a pretty small thing to end up with cps in your house over.  I really would have thought verifying the paperwork would have solved the problem.  I mean the pull-up thing isn’t even an issue unless it’s an ongoing thing that the child’s being forced to wear against their will or an untreated medical thing.  

 

Small, yes, but like I said upthread - if this happened to be the one case where a small error turned out to be the key to stopping horrific abuse from happening and the caseworker had rolled her eyes and said "This is garbage" then after the fact everybody would've been barking up her butt to blame her for not checking it out. And she's not paid enough to deal with that, and her boss isn't paid enough either, so the rules state she's supposed to drive out, put eyes on the kid, and hopefully get a peek at the house just in case something is really wrong.

It's stupid and it's petty and it's ridiculous, and I have no doubt that there are some people who really relish this power they have over others - but honestly, I don't think this requirement is caused by that, I think it's caused by the department wanting to make sure their behinds are covered if something goes wrong, and also a sincere desire to not see any children murdered on their watch.

And yeah, there's genuine overreach that maps really disgustingly onto racial and class lines, and on the flip side there are also gruesome cases where you wonder what on earth those caseworkers were even thinking (all possible content warnings apply to that link, as it is truly harrowing to read) and CPS workers can never do right, no matter what they do, because everybody always blames them for either removing too many kids or not removing enough kids. It's not a fun job, they don't get paid well, and they sure don't have good hours, and with all that in mind I'll give them a little slack for wanting to check out the calls they're expected to check out rather than just writing them off as patently ridiculous. I may or may not let them into my house - both options are my right as an American citizen! - but I don't blame them for trying to do their actually awful job.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Tanaqui

[PeterPan]

Ok, I'll just ask because it confuses me. Why was your 9yo at the Y if he was sick and why did anyone there KNOW he was wearing pull-ups if he had his pants on? My ds has ASD2 and needs pants sometimes when sick, so I get that it happens. I just don't usually take him out places when he's sick and no one would KNOW unless I told them as they aren't visible.

[Jean in Newcastle]

7 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I guess this depends on whether you view an investigation as no harm or not.  I think for me if I went through this it would probably change the way I parent and make me more guarded.  And high levels of parental stress aren’t good for kids at all.  Feeling like you have to maintain a perfectly clean home can definitely change the way you parent.

putting a diaper on a 9yo with the vomiting and paperwork not lining up seems like a pretty small thing to end up with cps in your house over.  I really would have thought verifying the paperwork would have solved the problem.  I mean the pull-up thing isn’t even an issue unless it’s an ongoing thing that the child’s being forced to wear against their will or an untreated medical thing.  

Maybe it’s a confidence thing?  I would have felt secure in knowing that I was not doing anything wrong right from the start. That’s why my initial advice was to not panic and to rest in the knowledge that it would be easily cleared up. And the outcome of this would have bolstered that confidence. Would I have some worry behind that confidence?  Yes. But objectively thinking this through would have given my confidence back. 

(And because someone is going to somehow take this as a slam, this is just my opinion based on my experience as a mom.  I have had busy bodies in my life.  I didn’t let them stop me. )

[Bluegoat]

17 hours ago, EmseB said:

But when should a random report of someone (you aren't allowed to know who!) thinking a kid is too old to be in pull ups mean that law enforcement should be able to come into your house? What should be too minor to investigate? Why assume the parent is wrong and has the responsibility to clear things up if the state can't find the paperwork? Why not assume the bureaucracy is wrong?

"Community workers" sounds awesome and quaint, except for the fact that these workers in particular have the power to forcibly remove kids from parents. It is super great this all went well for the OP and everyone learned something about each other. But the system is not set up with a kumbaya balance of power, at least not in the case of CPS. And the point most people were getting at was not that it was likely to go bad (or that the worker would toss her house as someone else strawmanned), but if it did it would be better to be prepared.

 

There is a good reason we have random reports allowed.  It's normally people that have some contact with vulnerable people that will notice abuse.  And inevitably, sometimes those random reports will be mistaken, or even have ill intent.  

I really don't see a better approach than having an actual person check them out, and I don't see any way that person can choose how to act than looking at flags that are likely to indicate problems.  Anything else I can think of would be far more intrusive, or you might as well not have a child protection branch in the first place.  

There is a huge difference between saying that law enforcement has a legal right to come into your house, and saying that for someone looking into a report, hostility to the worker doing that in an effective way is a second flag.  That doesn't even mean that the parents in that scenario are therefore guilty - it just means the worker has a second risk factor and may be likely to want to keep an eye on this rather than closing it.  I mean - that is the other option - the worker knows that usually it is a flag of a problem, but they close anyway.  

This isn't really that different from how someone investigating a disease has to think about it.  Every flag pointing in a particular direction is another reason to weight that as a possibility and look into it, until that possibility is eliminated.  But, even with those flags, you still need to confirm the problem, at least if its at all possible.

[unsinkable]

10 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Maybe it’s a confidence thing?  I would have felt secure in knowing that I was not doing anything wrong right from the start. That’s why my initial advice was to not panic and to rest in the knowledge that it would be easily cleared up. And the outcome of this would have bolstered that confidence. Would I have some worry behind that confidence?  Yes. But objectively thinking this through would have given my confidence back. 

(And because someone is going to somehow take this as a slam, this is just my opinion based on my experience as a mom.  I have had busy bodies in my life.  I didn’t let them stop me. )

oh, I missed this in the thread...How many busy bodies called CPS on you? And how many convivial  CPS visits  to your home did those calls result in?

[unsinkable]

28 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

Ok, I'll just ask because it confuses me. Why was your 9yo at the Y if he was sick and why did anyone there KNOW he was wearing pull-ups if he had his pants on? My ds has ASD2 and needs pants sometimes when sick, so I get that it happens. I just don't usually take him out places when he's sick and no one would KNOW unless I told them as they aren't visible.

I thought Ananda said he wore them a bit longer after he was over being sick bc he was nervous about an accident.

I think pull ups can be noticeable, depending on the style of pants.

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 minute ago, unsinkable said:

oh, I missed this in the thread...How many busy bodies called CPS on you? And how many convivial  CPS visits  to your home did those calls result in?

I have had CPS threatened twice. Neither time did CPS come. I have had the police come and investigate twice. Which is why I mentioned police earlier in the thread. The police did not pass it on to CPS.

 

[Bluegoat]

15 hours ago, LMD said:

 I do get what you're saying Bluegoat, but to this above part of your quote - yes. If following the legal process doesn't provide enough evidence to encroach upon the boundary of the private home, then what else can they legally do? 

 

Well, this is the thing to me - legally, she can't encroach.  And yet she knows that non-cooperation is likely a sign of a problem.

So, if this is your file, what do you do?  I think the answer is you don't close it in the same way you would if you were confident that the report was bunk.  I'm not sure what that would mean administratively, maybe you would start digging around in some other way that was, legally, open to you.  Or maybe you would just make sure you kept your eyes and ears open, or something else.  

We hear of cases pretty regularly where child protection workers satisfied the requirements, and so closed up the case, and something terrible happened.  And the criticism is usually - but you knew there were these flags - you had to know - why did you not keep a better eye on the situation?  The usual reason is simply that they are understaffed which is obviously not the fault of the workers - I'm not really willing to accept that it's a actually good practise to make these investigations a box-ticking exercise.

[unsinkable]

4 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I have had CPS threatened twice. Neither time did CPS come. I have had the police come and investigate twice. Which is why I mentioned police earlier in the thread. The police did not pass it on to CPS.

 

So someone accused you of a crime against your children? Is that what you mean? And you "cooperated" by inviting them into your house for coffee and a chat?

[nixpix5]

On 2/26/2019 at 8:42 PM, MissLemon said:

IMO, there are a LOT of people who have no business working with children because they have zero understanding of typical behavior and immediately jump to judge and assume the worst of a family.  I avoid programs run by the park district, the Y, the school district, etc because every single time we have tried those programs, the person running them has insanely high standards of behavior for the kids.  Invariably, my little question-asker gets yelled at and I get a lecture from the instructor on "appropriate behavior", which usually means "Tell your kid to stop asking questions and follow my directions immediately, without question" (I quite literally had a teacher tell me this).  I've also had the 20-something year old park district instructor "diagnose" my kid with autism after she bullied him and made him cry.  Her total experience working with children was "Well, I have a 4 year old brother, so I think I'm good with kids".  She had grave and patronizing concerns about my kiddo because he couldn't effectively defend his opinion that he be first in line to enter the classroom and instead burst into tears.  Good grief. 

So it doesn't surprise me at all that some busy-body at the Y called CPS.  It's always the Mrs. Kravitz of the world who don't know what they are talking about but feel "empowered" because they took a 3 hour child-abuse-prevention course.     

To piggy back on this, one thing I saw ALOT of in counseling was brand new counselors with zero exposure to kids and none of their own who made sweeping assumptions about abuse if a child showed anger, anxiety, acting out etc. As a supervisor I was constantly fielding panicked fledgling therapists who were sure a parent was abusing their child based on what they were seeing. It was TERRIFYING because they were so quick to want to bring CPS into everything. 

[Bluegoat]

36 minutes ago, unsinkable said:

So someone accused you of a crime against your children? Is that what you mean? And you "cooperated" by inviting them into your house for coffee and a chat?

 

Why would she be upset with the police, because some other person made a complaint?  

[Pen]

I’m really glad it went well!

[unsinkable]

49 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Why would she be upset with the police, because some other person made a complaint?  

where did I say she should be upset with the police? Please quote me bc that was not my intent.

I would certainly be wary of the police coming to her door with an accusation of a crime against her children. But we don't even know if that really is what happened because Jean hasn't replied. 

 

[Catwoman]

58 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Why would she be upset with the police, because some other person made a complaint?  

 

I don’t know about you, but if police detectives showed up at my house with a complaint about me or my child, I wouldn’t exactly be feeling calm, and I would also be very upset that someone had filed a report claiming that there was something criminal going on in my house, because I would obsess over trying to figure out who it was.

Now I’m feeling nosy and am wondering what actually happened, because I can’t imagine either Jean or her kids being in any kind of trouble with the police!

But police showing up at my door? You bet I’d be upset!

[Bluegoat]

21 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

You can require someone in an official capacity to follow the law though and not be hostile about it. I am struggling to see where the asking them to in essence, follow what has been established by the government as their end of due diligence, would be seen as hostile and then another flag? It shouldn't be automatically seen as such. On one hand, I can see where the "oh just let them see the kids so they can check the box and move on to what could be a real risk". thought exists.  But on the other hand, there is a burden of proof on the authorities' end and those burdens exist for a reason- a key one I would think being limiting abuse of power. 

Using the disease example- as a public health official you'd be limited by a clear set of established rules- local and federal, not to mention HIPPA and other things in the US to follow up on that investigation. For an example, a public health official cannot knock on doors and demand to test people for TB and take them to jail if they refuse, eventough they are definitely a threat to the health of the general public. (They can in a border issue, or a school setting or otherwise compel you, but they can't come into your house and force you.)  In the CPS case in particular, I think maybe those guidelines are murkier than they would be in a Public Health or stricter Law Enforcement scenario? A police officer in a formal investigation would need to read Miranda rights (although I know that isn't always followed) but I don't think CPS has any equivalent of Miranda- unless or until they're bringing the police to formally arrest you. But they can seize the children without arresting you, and they can use what you say in the course of an investigation to arrest you later on.  They don't seem to operate under the same standard necessarily as typical LE. Theoretically I can get why- when the wellbeing of children is at stake- but on the other hand, it makes it easy to see how and why so much goes wrong. The protections for the accused don't seem like they are protected in the same way that they would be in other criminal proceedings. 

I'm not trying to be an apologist for the rights of abusers either. I gave the advice I gave to OP not knowing if CPS had legit concerns or not. But I am a big believer in fundamental US rights when it comes to the rules the government has to play by. Those rules are there because they've been abused by previous governments time and time again (and still are), not just because there was some theoretical chance of overreach that had yet to be seen. If the norm becomes "well if you have nothing to hide, let them in and go along," and that ever became admissible in a court as evidence of guilt in and of itself- then the bar just lowered on the burden of proof to where the accusation alone becomes a weapon with no right to recourse. That's scary. 

I've noticed in British shows there is a marked difference in the US Miranda rights versus what is said on the UK shows as the Right to silence. That's something I'd be interesting in learning more about.  The phrase 

seems to drop some of the burden onto the defendant at that point if they don't mention things at the time of arrest? This is in contrast to the Shut Up Doctrine. Maybe that's just my impression as an American, and it's not really that different. Just seems as such. 

 

It's a red flag not because it's legal or illegal, it's a red flag because for potential child abuse cases, empirically it's associated with people who are in situations where there is abuse.  Just like empirically, other red flags are people who have reports made against them, or kids that are not going out to some sort of place like school.  None of those things are causatively related to abuse.  They are simply indicators that suggest that is a greater or higher risk.  It's not really a public health analogy, because these are individual cases of a worker trying to figure out what is going on.  The only way for them to judge is what they see.

You are allowed not to send your kids to school, you are allowed not to ask someone into your kitchen or living room to chat.  I suppose we could direct CPS workers to ignore those things as relevant, even though they are valid in risk assessment.  I'm not convinced that is a particularly good idea.  

CPS looking to see if a kid is abused isn't a criminal proceeding, so it's not odd to me they'd not operate on that basis.  

[Bluegoat]

13 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

I don’t know about you, but if police detectives showed up at my house with a complaint about me or my child, I wouldn’t exactly be feeling calm, and I would also be very upset that someone had filed a report claiming that there was something criminal going on in my house, because I would obsess over trying to figure out who it was.

Now I’m feeling nosy and am wondering what actually happened, because I can’t imagine either Jean or her kids being in any kind of trouble with the police!

But police showing up at my door? You bet I’d be upset!

 

I might be upset, but not at the police.  If it seemed that there was something that required having a conversation, being upset about what some other person had said would not make me feel I should keep them on the doorstep.  

[Catwoman]

Just now, Bluegoat said:

 

I might be upset, but not at the police.  If it seemed that there was something that required having a conversation, being upset about what some other person had said would not make me feel I should keep them on the doorstep.  

 

Well, she said that detectives showed up, so seemingly it wasn’t something minor like the kids riding their bikes someplace they shouldn’t, because a uniformed officer would have showed up for something like that. 

If detectives came to my house because they were investigating someone in my family, I wouldn’t be inviting them in for a friendly chat; I would offer to meet them at the police station with my attorney. 

But again, without knowing the details, I can’t say exactly what I would do.

 

[unsinkable]

Just now, Bluegoat said:

 

I might be upset, but not at the police.  If it seemed that there was something that required having a conversation, being upset about what some other person had said would not make me feel I should keep them on the doorstep.  

and yet, in the post of mine you quoted, I didn't mention getting upset at anyone, let alone the police.

I said, "So someone accused you of a crime against your children? Is that what you mean? And you "cooperated" by inviting them into your house for coffee and a chat?" 

to which you responded, "Why would she be upset with the police, because some other person made a complaint?"

*Being upset at the police* certainly isnt what I am talking about. I have to wonder why that got inserted into the conversation? 

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

29 minutes ago, unsinkable said:

where did I say she should be upset with the police? Please quote me bc that was not my intent.

I would certainly be wary of the police coming to her door with an accusation of a crime against her children. But we don't even know if that really is what happened because Jean hasn't replied. 

 

And I am not going to reply with specifics. While I share a lot in general ways online, I am protective of my family’s privacy.   The specifics don’t matter anyway. Things were cleared up. No one in my family did anything wrong and the police backed us up. 

And for the purposes of  this thread I offered my opinion based on my general life experience as well as my opinion of how to keep children safe. I have no problem with other people offering their opinions even if they differ from mine. 

[unsinkable]

5 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

Well, she said that detectives showed up, so seemingly it wasn’t something minor like the kids riding their bikes someplace they shouldn’t, because a uniformed officer would have showed up for something like that. 

If detectives came to my house because they were investigating someone in my family, I wouldn’t be inviting them in for a friendly chat; I would offer to meet them at the police station with my attorney. 

But again, without knowing the details, I can’t say exactly what I would do.

 

Yeah, detectives aren't sent for unsupervised kids at the park or mom left babies home alone. Those imminent type situations usually involve a patrol car sent to check on the kids immediately, bc it can be a safety issue.

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

And because somehow speculation is running rampant, I live in a very small city. Police are called for small things. And yes, in a small city with just two officers, one of them is a detective.   

[Bluegoat]

8 minutes ago, unsinkable said:

and yet, in the post of mine you quoted, I didn't mention getting upset at anyone, let alone the police.

I said, "So someone accused you of a crime against your children? Is that what you mean? And you "cooperated" by inviting them into your house for coffee and a chat?" 

to which you responded, "Why would she be upset with the police, because some other person made a complaint?"

*Being upset at the police* certainly isnt what I am talking about. I have to wonder why that got inserted into the conversation? 

 

 

The implication seemed pretty clearly that coffee and a chat were an unlikely response to police coming to your door because someone had made a complaint.  And more than that, what is the meaning of cooperating being in quotes?  It all seems to imply some sort of unlikely way of being friendly but somehow you think there is some other motive.

I am sorry I misunderstood if you meant something else, but I don't think my reading was especially odd.

[unsinkable]

Just now, Bluegoat said:

 

The implication seemed pretty clearly that coffee and a chat were an unlikely response to police coming to your door because someone had made a complaint.  And more than that, what is the meaning of cooperating being in quotes?  It all seems to imply some sort of unlikely way of being friendly but somehow you think there is some other motive.

I am sorry I misunderstood if you meant something else, but I don't think my reading was especially odd.

Yes, I do think inviting detectives in for coffee and a chat if I am accused of a crime against my children is an unlikely response, to put it mildly.  but that doesnt mean *be upset with the police.* 

I put "cooperating" in quotes bc it is being used often in this thread and I thought Jean had used it to describe what she had done. 

 

[moonflower]

Bluegoat, I think it might be part of the crux of the whole issue.

For me, following the law re: police cooperation (that is to say, being willing to talk with a lawyer and not allow people investigating us into the home without a warrant, etc.) is not "unfriendly," nor is allowing them in for coffee and a chat when being investigated "friendly."  It would have nothing to do with being upset at the CPS or the police, because as you pointed out  it's not like the police or CPS would have made up a random accusation to get access.  There would be no emotion on my part, except fear maybe, toward the authorities in these cases.

It would just be a calculation of what is the wisest course of action to protect my own interests and the interests of my family in this situation.

[moonflower]

Re: a robust society, I think the US has been a robust society for some time.  I don't know that we're all that robust now, but I don't think that decline is because of the factors that made us great in the first place, incl. the Bill of Rights.

I do feel the same way about guns, fwiw, and vaccines.  

 

[unsinkable]

16 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

And because somehow speculation is running rampant, I live in a very small city. Police are called for small things. And yes, in a small city with just two officers, one of them is a detective.   

So now you are saying he wasn't acting in his capacity as a detective?

[Catwoman]

11 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

The implication seemed pretty clearly that coffee and a chat were an unlikely response to police coming to your door because someone had made a complaint.  And more than that, what is the meaning of cooperating being in quotes?  It all seems to imply some sort of unlikely way of being friendly but somehow you think there is some other motive.

I am sorry I misunderstood if you meant something else, but I don't think my reading was especially odd.

 

I would find it quite unlikely that the average person would invite unannounced and uninvited detectives into their homes for coffee and a chat. I can see standing at the door and talking with them to find out what’s going on, but inviting them in for coffee? Not so much.

Seriously, if detectives show up at your door, they’re not there about an unpaid parking ticket. I would think that most people, even assuming that they are entirely innocent, would be rattled by that. It’s not that they would be upset with the police, but that they would be shocked and upset about the idea that their family was being investigated for something criminal.

[Catwoman]

14 minutes ago, moonflower said:

Bluegoat, I think it might be part of the crux of the whole issue.

For me, following the law re: police cooperation (that is to say, being willing to talk with a lawyer and not allow people investigating us into the home without a warrant, etc.) is not "unfriendly," nor is allowing them in for coffee and a chat when being investigated "friendly."  It would have nothing to do with being upset at the CPS or the police, because as you pointed out  it's not like the police or CPS would have made up a random accusation to get access.  There would be no emotion on my part, except fear maybe, toward the authorities in these cases.

It would just be a calculation of what is the wisest course of action to protect my own interests and the interests of my family in this situation.

 

Yes! You’re explaining this way better than I am.

[unsinkable]

13 minutes ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

Good lord, woman. Give it a rest. Perhaps I’m wrong, but this seems almost like you’re not letting go on purpose, like it’s not even curiosity.

I'm having an important conversation, IMO. 

If someone is giving advice in such a serious matter, I think she should be able to stand by her comments. If one says, *let CPS in and cooperate. I cooperated with detectives bc I was innocent and it turned out fine* based on her own personal experience, but Then she backtracks or equivocates or changes the situation, I think that is pretty serious because it negates her previous advice.

 

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, moonflower said:

Bluegoat, I think it might be part of the crux of the whole issue.

For me, following the law re: police cooperation (that is to say, being willing to talk with a lawyer and not allow people investigating us into the home without a warrant, etc.) is not "unfriendly," nor is allowing them in for coffee and a chat when being investigated "friendly."  It would have nothing to do with being upset at the CPS or the police, because as you pointed out  it's not like the police or CPS would have made up a random accusation to get access.  There would be no emotion on my part, except fear maybe, toward the authorities in these cases.

It would just be a calculation of what is the wisest course of action to protect my own interests and the interests of my family in this situation.

 

Chatting and coffee aren't necessary, sure.  But they also aren't wrong, and I would say a lot of good comes out of that kind of ability for people to talk together.  If they seem to have some agenda, or are known to be untrustworthy, by all means, be wary.

I want serious crimes to be solved.  I want abused children to be helped.  I think that is in my interests, and the interests of others as well.  

[unsinkable]

1 hour ago, Catwoman said:

 

I would find it quite unlikely that the average person would invite unannounced and uninvited detectives into their homes for coffee and a chat. I can see standing at the door and talking with them to find out what’s going on, but inviting them in for coffee? Not so much.

Seriously, if detectives show up at your door, they’re not there about an unpaid parking ticket. I would think that most people, even assuming that they are entirely innocent, would be rattled by that. It’s not that they would be upset with the police, but that they would be shocked and upset about the idea that their family was being investigated for something criminal.

If someone was innocent, he might be even MORE rattled if detectives showed up at his door than if he was guilty of something. If someone had committed a crime and he knew it, he might be waiting for LE to show up. He might have his story prepared and he might think he can talk himself out of trouble (didn't we just have a thread about this? Criminals thinking they are smart enough to keep from getting caught/charged, etc?).

On the other hand, an innocent man might be completely baffled if LE shows up and not have any clue what is going on. THat would certainly be shocking!

 

[moonflower]

1 minute ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Chatting and coffee aren't necessary, sure.  But they also aren't wrong, and I would say a lot of good comes out of that kind of ability for people to talk together.  If they seem to have some agenda, or are known to be untrustworthy, by all means, be wary.

I want serious crimes to be solved.  I want abused children to be helped.  I think that is in my interests, and the interests of others as well.  

 

Well sure, of course I want the bolded too.  If I think there might be abuse of my kids, I want CPS to investigate for sure, although I'd still be pretty wary, because I want to know who is abusing my kids and stop it!

But in cases where the only suspect is me, and I know I didn't do anything, letting CPS exceed the requirements of the law doesn't help anyone.

[LMD]

2 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

It's a red flag not because it's legal or illegal, it's a red flag because for potential child abuse cases, empirically it's associated with people who are in situations where there is abuse.  Just like empirically, other red flags are people who have reports made against them, or kids that are not going out to some sort of place like school.  None of those things are causatively related to abuse.  They are simply indicators that suggest that is a greater or higher risk.  It's not really a public health analogy, because these are individual cases of a worker trying to figure out what is going on.  The only way for them to judge is what they see.

You are allowed not to send your kids to school, you are allowed not to ask someone into your kitchen or living room to chat.  I suppose we could direct CPS workers to ignore those things as relevant, even though they are valid in risk assessment.  I'm not convinced that is a particularly good idea.  

CPS looking to see if a kid is abused isn't a criminal proceeding, so it's not odd to me they'd not operate on that basis.  

Yes, but it's only a red flag now because cps have normalised the expectation of overstepping the legal boundary of the private home.

People upholding the letter of their rights should never be a red flag. Government workers who routinely overstep theirs is a red flag. I'm annoyed because I believe that in the case of interfering between parents and children the standards should be very high and they should be enforced.

[Bluegoat]

12 minutes ago, moonflower said:

 

Well sure, of course I want the bolded too.  If I think there might be abuse of my kids, I want CPS to investigate for sure, although I'd still be pretty wary, because I want to know who is abusing my kids and stop it!

But in cases where the only suspect is me, and I know I didn't do anything, letting CPS exceed the requirements of the law doesn't help anyone.

 

Directly, if they can't quickly determine that you aren't an abuser, they have to spend their resources keeping an eye on you.  

But their standard practices don't exist just for you - the same will be applied to the people are are, in fact, abusers.

[Catwoman]

11 minutes ago, unsinkable said:

If someone was innocent, he might be even MORE rattled if detectives showed up at his door than if he was guilty of something. If someone had committed a crime and he knew it, he might be waiting for LE to show up. He might have his story prepared and he might think he can talk himself out of trouble (didn't we just have a thread about this? Criminals thinking they are smart enough to keep from getting caught/charged, etc?).

On the other hand, an innocent man might be completely baffled if LE shows up and not have any clue what is going on. THat would certainly be shocking!

 

 

Yes — the element of surprise would be the biggest issue.  

I would think it would come as quite a shock to most people if they answered the doorbell and detectives were standing there telling them that the police department was investigating a member of their family! Yikes!

[Bluegoat]

2 minutes ago, LMD said:

Yes, but it's only a red flag now because cps have normalised the expectation of overstepping the legal boundary of the private home.

People upholding the letter of their rights should never be a red flag. Government workers who routinely overstep theirs is a red flag. I'm annoyed because I believe that in the case of interfering between parents and children the standards should be very high and they should be enforced.

 

Is that it though, or is it because most people actually want to help CPS?  It is perfectly legal to do that - neither they no anyone else are stretching the law. - it doesn't work that way.  A law that says, you can't go in unless they let you does not mean, you shouldn't let them in.

You can't really stop people from seeing certain choices correlated to something negative if in fact they are.  It's not even a choice for people to do that, they know whether they want to or not.  A law can be effective without changing that - it had better be, really, because that would be an impossible task.

[moonflower]

1 minute ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Directly, if they can't quickly determine that you aren't an abuser, they have to spend their resources keeping an eye on you.  

But their standard practices don't exist just for you - the same will be applied to the people are are, in fact, abusers.

 

I don't understand the argument, I think.  They don't have to spend any resources keeping an eye on me.  If I say, come back when you have a warrant, and they cannot get a warrant because there is nothing substantial (like in the OP's case), they spend less time on me than on someone else.  

My responses to CPS exist just for me. 

Do you mean that I should allow CPS to overstep their authority because if there is a culture of allowing them to overstep maybe real abusers will also allow them to overstep and so they can get real abusers without having to go through the legal process?  To me, the costs of that, both socially and personally, are too high.  I don't want to lower the bar in order to make us all more safe.  I am not interested in giving up more liberty for more safety.

Mandating inspections for homeschoolers would have the same effect - it would catch more abusers.  Not worth it, imo.

[moonflower]

1 minute ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Is that it though, or is it because most people actually want to help CPS?  It is perfectly legal to do that - neither they no anyone else are stretching the law. - it doesn't work that way.  A law that says, you can't go in unless they let you does not mean, you shouldn't let them in.

You can't really stop people from seeing certain choices correlated to something negative if in fact they are.  It's not even a choice for people to do that, they know whether they want to or not.  A law can be effective without changing that - it had better be, really, because that would be an impossible task.

 

No, people who let CPS in aren't doing it because they want to help the community or help CPS catch child abusers.  Of the people I have talked to who over-cooperated with CPS (me included!), zero of them were doing it altruistically or because they thought it was the socially beneficial behavior.

They did it because they were scared.  I did it because I was scared.  CPS uses that fear on purpose to gain access they don't legally have.